mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Grokking in Linear Models for Logistic Regression

arXiv 2602.08302 ↗First posted 9 Feb 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Grokking, the phenomenon of delayed generalization, is often attributed to the depth and compositional structure of deep neural networks. We study grokking in one of the simplest possible settings: the learning of a linear model with logistic loss for binary classification on data that are linearly (and max margin) separable about the origin. We investigate three testing regimes: (1) test data drawn from the same distribution as the training data, in which case grokking is not observed; (2) test data concentrated around the margin, in which case grokking is observed; and (3) adversarial test data generated via projected gradient descent (PGD) attacks, in which case grokking is also observed. We theoretically show that the implicit bias of gradient descent induces a three-phase learning process-population-dominated, support-vector-dominated unlearning, and support-vector-dominated generalization-during which delayed generalization can arise. Our analysis further relates the emergence of grokking to asymmetries in the data, both in the number of examples per class and in the distribution of support vectors across classes, and yields a characterization of the grokking time. We experimentally validate our theory by planting different distributions of population points and support vectors, and by analyzing accuracy curves and hyperplane dynamics. Overall, our results demonstrate that grokking does not require depth or representation learning, and can emerge even in linear models through the dynamics of the bias term.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2026.

Builds on

21 of 24 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  2. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  3. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
  4. 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
  5. 2020Prevalence of Neural Collapse during the terminal phase of deep learning trainingcited by 713
  6. 2019Deep Double Descent: Where Bigger Models and More Data Hurtcited by 667
  7. 2017The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Separable Datacited by 649
  8. 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 599
  9. 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 595
  10. 2022Towards Understanding Grokking: An Effective Theory of Representation Learningcited by 229
  11. 2017The Power of Interpolation: Understanding the Effectiveness of SGD in Modern Over-parametrized Learningcited by 150
  12. 2023Grokking as the Transition from Lazy to Rich Training Dynamicscited by 102
9 more
  1. 2022The Slingshot Mechanism: An Empirical Study of Adaptive Optimizers and the Grokking Phenomenoncited by 90
  2. 2023Dichotomy of Early and Late Phase Implicit Biases Can Provably Induce Grokkingcited by 76
  3. 2024Why Do You Grok? A Theoretical Analysis of Grokking Modular Additioncited by 34
  4. 2023Grokking in Linear Estimators -- A Solvable Model that Groks without Understandingcited by 25
  5. 2023To grok or not to grok: Disentangling generalization and memorization on corrupted algorithmic datasetscited by 24
  6. 2024The Complexity Dynamics of Grokkingcited by 21
  7. 2025Grokking Beyond the Euclidean Norm of Model Parameterscited by 14
  8. 2024Deep Grokking: Would Deep Neural Networks Generalize Better?cited by 13
  9. 2024Grokking at the Edge of Linear Separabilitycited by 11

Built on by

Not cited yet.